Nusach sefard

If that’s the biggest question you have against the new things the Besht instituted, you’re not doing too badly. There were plenty of other things that were far more controversial.

The Vilna Gaon held that chassidus was apikurses, and felt the Besht was a machteh es harabim. He put the Besht in cherem.

Take it up with the ARIZAL.

This question is actually a broader one, and is addressed in many of the tshuvos sforim of yesteryear. I cannot cite the exact reference, but the Divrei Chaim of Tzanz expounds on this issue. The Ashkenazic Jews had been davening what is known as Nusach Ashkenaz (presumably that which is labeled as such today). The adoption of Nusach Sfard (definitely not the nuschaos used by various kehillos of Sephardic Jews) is questioned as a departure. According to the Divrei Chaim, Nusach Ha’Ari is an inclusive nusach, and is avaiable to anyone. There are several different kabalos on what the exact Nusach Ha’Ari was. The siddur used by Chabad is labeled Nusach Ha’Ari, but is definitely not. It is the nusach compiled by the Baal Hatanya, based on Nusach Ha’Ari. There are glaring differences. In any case, it is not considered a departure to daven a general nusach, especially one based on the kabala of the Ari.

What remains a serious question is the marketed Nusach Sfard. It seems clear that the contemporary Sfard is a conglomeration of whatever the publisher decided to include. There are many proofs to this (references available). The common Nusach Ashkenaz is probably more accurate, but also not precise.

Too bad you didn’t catch the Arizal in time.

Define the Halachic problem. The Chasam Sofer didn’t find any actual Halachic problem when he complained about it. Did you find something he missed?

Feif Un: You are entirely incorrect and do not know of which you speak. The Baal Shem Tov lived a generation prior to the Vilna Gaon and the Gaon’s cherem never included the Besht, nor did he consider him what you said he did.

Chulent: It is well known what the Gra (1720-1897) thought of the Besht (1698-1760). Admitting that fact does not lessen the validity of Chassidism nor does denying reality add anything.

There are only 2 authentic Nuscho’os:- Ashkenaz!!! & Sephardi!!!

Sefard is so jumbled with so many different versions, because it is far too young/recent and with no basis, 300 years being very recent compared to Ashkenaz & Sephardi having been around for well over a millennium.

It is no accident that most Yeshivas & Young Israel Shuls Daven Nusach Ashkenaz, as it is so exceedingly authentic.

Here goes, HaLevi, the kanoi! Guess what — Magen Avrohom held it’s ossur to change the nusach. Based on a Yerushalmi! Further questions?

Magen Avrohom held it’s ossur to change the nusach.

Then I guess I’m in big trouble – I switched from Ashkenaz to Sfard after we made aliyah – of course, with the guidance of our rav. I guess I’ll be joining The Wolf . . .

Perhaps the author of the Megillas Esther davened Sfard. It says that Achashvairosh was king from Hodu ad Kush. It would have been just as easy to write king from Kush ad Hodu. It is a remez that first you daven hodu and then mir get der tzizzis a kush!

People, look, the Rem”a says that it is ENTIRELY ASSUR to change any minhag yisrael. This debate should be strictly theoretical, conjectural and speculative.

The ARIZAL held it 100% muttar, and even PERFERABLE, to daven with this Nusach.

I guess that means that I’m a sinner for disregarding the Arizal and davening Nusach Ashkenaz.

The Wolf

The background to the proliferation of nuschaos is that each shevet had its own nusach that corresponded with its individual derech of avodas Hashem. These nuschaos were lost with the golus, and the prevalent nusach hatefillo was established in each of the major communities, Ashkenaz (Germany and neighboring lands), and Sforad (Spain and neighboring lands, including North Africa). These predate the printing press, so that the central establishment of anything was a fixed thing, though the hand copying of all texts meant that human error and modifications were common. I do not know enough about the nuschaos of Sfard, but the first one to publish the Ashkenaz siddur with any attention to true nusach was R’ Volf Heidenheim, who was a talmid of R’ Nosson Adler, and a chaver to the Chasam Sofer. He published his siddur 8 times, with changes in each printing, as he became aware of nuances that required change.

There was a sefer on tefilloh that was printed in Berlin in 5545 by Yitzchok Stanov (Vaye’etar Yitzchok) in which he proposed various pshotim on tefilloh together with changes in Nusach. A study of history reveals that this fellow, albeit knowledgeable, was a maskil, and far to the left even among maskilim. Despite this status, many of the changes he made became popular and incorporated into the siddur. As R’ Volf Heidenheim became aware of this source as the background for certain aspects of nusach, he changed them back in the next printing of his siddur.

Today’s Ashkenaz is based primarily on R’ Volf Heidenheim. Much of the popular Nusach Sfard is similarly based on Heidenheim.

Bottom line is that today’s popular siddurim, both Ashkenaz and Sfard, lack the exactness that should really be found in the siddurim we all use (though Ashkenaz fares better than Sfard). In this climate, it is worthwhile to address nusach as something that has been established by someone with the knowledge in higher realms. In the Chassidishe world, this would involve any of several mesoros on nusach from the Ari. In the Litvishe world, one should examine the siddur from the Vilna Gaon who also attended to nusach from the realms of halacha and kabbala.

“The little I know” seems a little inaccurate as a screen name, no?

I have a couple comments about what you said:

1- You call R’ Heidenheim “the first one to publish the Ashkenaz siddur with any attention to true nusach.” He was the first one to publish one with attention to reconstructing a true nusach. All siddurim try to be accurate. Also, he was anything but a talmid of Rav Nosson Adler later in his life.

2- Which nussach sfard do you mean when you say the “popular” one? Some of them are chassidishe Nuschaos, others, like artscroll are based on R’ Hadenheim

3- Why do you say it is necessary to use nuschaos that are based on kaballa?

Probably your biggest sin is disregarding the fifth chelek of shulchan oruch.

I wouldn’t say that that’s the biggest sin I’ve done. However, I’ll admit to occasionally having a lack of common sense — just like everyone else.

The Wolf

Itchesrulik:

Point by point response.

1. All siddurim were copies of previous ones, though they were made by publishers, not rabbonim themselves who sought to codify the nusach. In that effort, Heidenheim was the one who took the lead, both historically as well as practically in publishing his siddur. What do you know about Heidenheim later in life regarding being other than a talmid of R’ Nosson Adler? Please provide references. The Chasam Sofer references him often with great kavod.

2. When I refer to “popular” nuschaos, I refer to the common, standard publications of siddurim used in most shuls. The chassidishe nuschaos suggested here are still based on choices made by publishers, who might be nice people, but not necessarily those who I would seek to be koveya a nusach. Artscroll used Heidenheim for reference, but so did many of the earlier published siddurim of Nusach Ashkenaz.

3. As far as kaballah, I do not make specific recommendation about that. All I noted, based on tshuvos from the Chasam Sofer and the Divrei Chaim is that a nusach that is based on the kaballah from the Ari is considered a nusach that is inclusive – it contains all the elements that the specific nuschaos of each shevet had. That is why the Divrei Chaim paskened that one may switch from Ashkenaz to a Nusach Ha’Ari. The logic, as I gather, is that this is not considered a switch away from the original nusach. I also acknowledged the greatness in kaballah of the Gr”a (who needs no haskomoh from me).

Rainus:- The Nusach of Ovinu Malkeinu in the Sidur Avodas Yisroel & the Sefas Emes Sidur, has 250 words, in 37 stanzas, 37 being predicated by Yitzchok Ovinu’s age by the Akeidoh. I suspect 3 extra words crept in.

Talking about exact # of words, the 2 Siddurim I just mentioned, have Haneiros Halolu, followed by exactly 36 words, as per instruction of Mishno Beruroh [36 candles throughout Chanukah], which other Sidurim’s Nuscho’ous don’t comply with.

There are no more misnagdim. The Gra’s biggest talmidim today learn Torah with Chasidim, join Chasidish Rabbonim on issues for the klal, consider them gedolim and marry Chasidim. And have been doing so for over a hundred years.

mdd, they might disagree on certain things but it’s a far cry from thinking of them as Apikursim or as Shabsai Tzvi followers.

1-He was against kabbala-yeshivos and was alleged to have written an anonymous pamphlet against Rav Nosson Adler later in life. Like most works about outdated machlokes, the pamphlet is out of print since the machlokes was, thank God, laid to rest a long time ago.

2-Fair enough.

3- I thought that was what you meant when you said In this climate, it is worthwhile to address nusach as something that has been established by someone with the knowledge in higher realms. If you didn’t mean that, my humblest apologies.

This thread is full of inaccurate and false statements. The Anshei Knesses Hagedolah were mesaken our tefillah more than 2000 years ago. We have no idea what the exact words of their nusach were, since Chazal actually forbade tefillos to be written down. (See Shabbos 115b “????? ????? ?????? ????”). They were only written later (I believe first by R’ Amram Gaon) because of ?? ????? ??’.

In any case, it seems that it doesn’t halachically matter so much. As long as one says the parts of tefillah that Chazal instituted and doesn’t say anything objectionable or false, he is yotzei tefillah. For example, the fourth bracha of Shmoneh Esreh is a request for knowledge. Therefore, it doesn’t matter whether one says ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? or ???? ???? ????. Neither would be considered ???? ????? ????? ?????.

If Chazal had established a specific nusach for tefilla that we were halachically bound to follow, mishnayos such as ????? ?? ?? ????? ???? ?????, ??? ??? ????? ???,??????????, ?????? ???? (Brachos 5:3). Since such phrase were clearly not instituted by Chazal, it would be obvious that it is asur to say them. Similarly, the gemara in Brachos 33b teel sof a certain chazzan who began chazaras hashatz “??-? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ???? ?????? ??????? ??????”. Rabbi Chanina waited until he finished Shmoneh Esreh, then took issue with him for saying so many praises of Hashem, as if those he said were all there was to say. However, if he had added other words of his own that weren’t inappropriate, R’ Chanina would not have been bothered to hear a nusach he had never heard before in his life. See also on 34a that R’ Eliezer had no problem with chazzanim adding and subtracting from Shmoneh Esreh at will, as long as they said the substantial parts of tefillah.

In short, all nuschaos of tefillah that have developped, Ashkenaz, Sefard, Moroccan, Yemenite, etc., are kosher. The question is only whether one has a right to change from the nusach that his ancestors davened.

“But I don’t think anyone is going to change their nusach based on anyone’s arguments either way.”

This is exactly right. And, I’m glad you brought that up about the 12 nusachs. It’s taught that each corresponded to one of the 12 permutations of HaShem’s name (4!/2!) so that Klal Yisroal collectively covered every possible way of praying to Hashem.

Do you have an example of the case where the combining in Nusach Sphard causes absurd phrasing? I’m just curious.

R’ Moshe Feinstein said that one can switch from davening sfard to daven ashkenaz, but not the other way around.

When I was in college, I learned in a small yeshiva for a year, where one of the Rabbeim was a student of R’ Aharon Kotler. He told us a story where R’ Aharon was traveling with a few students (including this Rebbe) and they stopped to daven Mincha. The shul davened sfard. R’ Aharon asked if he could daven for the amud, and he went up and davened ashkenaz. One of hte students asked him, “But Rebbe, the minhag hamakom is to daven sfard!” He replied, “Minhag hamakom has its place, but this is the proper nusach!”

Ah, good times in that yeshiva. It was where I met Feif Un. We went to the same college and the same yeshiva while in that college!

147- The reason the Ashkenazim say Bameh Madlikin and not Kegavna before Maariv on Shabbos is not to intentionally ignore Kabbalistic minhagim, but because saying Bameh Madlikin dates back to the time of the Geonim, while Kegavna only entered the siddurim some time after the Arizal. The Ashkenazim never adopted it. The real question is why, when Nusach Sefard started saying Kegavna, did they stop saying Bameh Madlikin?

I’m not sure that ?? ?? ??? ????? is really grammatically correct, but in any case what is the idea conveyed in that line of Tefillah? According to the Sefardim, it is that Hashem hears the tefillos of all people, and according to Nusach Ashkenaz, that Hashem hears the tefillos of Klal Yisrael. But what’s added by saying that He hears the prayers of “every mouth of His nation Yisrael”?

As far as Kegavna, it is a highly esoteric section of Zohar. I doubt 1% of those who say it really have any idea of what they’re saying. So the fact the Ashkenazim never adopted it is not at all surprising. Compare it to Berich Shemeih, which is also a section from Zohar, but has made it into almost all Ashkenaz siddurim in the past 300 years, perhaps because its simple meaning is easily understood.